ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2025-04-09
Offence No.: 4860-7320209Z

IN THE MATTER OF A MOTION FOR DIRECTIONS BROUGHT BY THE CITY OF TORONTO PURSUANT TO s. 12 of the Rules of the Ontario Court Provincial Division under s. 135 of the Provincial Offences Act, O. Reg. 722/94.

BETWEEN:

CITY OF TORONTO
Applicant

— AND —

MIGUEL BECERRA et al. [1]
Respondents

Before Justice Louis P. Strezos
Heard on March 24-25, 2025
Reasons for Judgment: Released on April 7, 2025
Revised Reasons for Judgment Released on April 9, 2025

Ms. V. Pankou and Ms. A. Katsez — Counsel for the Applicant, the City of Toronto
Mr. Adelin B. Mocanu — Paralegal Representative for the Respondents

I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

[1] In January of 2025, City of Toronto Prosecutors noticed something unusual was occurring in approximately two hundred and fifty (250) Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990 (“HTA”) appeals pending before this Court. [2] They saw a pattern: plead guilty, appeal and then, do nothing.

[2] They also noted that these guilty pleas were entered by a paralegal representative acting on behalf of the defendant, presumably with instructions to do so. However, many of the notices of appeal alleged that while the matter was “resolved” the defendant was not guilty – a claim of ineffective representation. What caused the City particular concern was that these Appeals were filed by Kiril Kovuntunko. The Law Society of Ontario (“LSO”) does not license him.

[3] Other appeals filed by “Ticket Justice” alleged non-existent grounds of appeal stating that: “Appeal is to be argued upon receipt of the transcript”. Ticket Justice is operated by Mr. Adelin B. Mocanu, a paralegal licensed by the LSO. His name also appears on the appeals filed by Ticket Justice. A review of the Court record below reveals that he also appeared and entered the guilty pleas as agent for the defendant on many of them.

[4] All the appeals were filed within 30 days of the guilty plea being entered. [3] None of the appeals challenged the sentence imposed. They all sought a new trial or that a finding of not guilty be substituted on appeal. Many of the appeals were well over a year old. Not one transcript had been served on the City or filed with the Court as of March 24, 2025.

[5] The City decided to act. First, on March 12, 2025, Toronto City Solicitor Wendy Walberg wrote to all the personal Appellants via registered mail advising of its intention to seek directions from the Court. She also wrote to the paralegal or individual identified in the notice of appeal as their representative and the paralegals who entered the guilty plea. [4] The letter advised that they would be seeking directions from the Court regarding the outstanding appeals pursuant to s. 12 of O. Reg 722/94. This regulation provides the Court with jurisdiction to give directions regarding the conduct of an appeal under the POA. [5]

[6] Second, all the identified appeal files were segregated and brought before the Court for review. On March 24 and 25, 2025 the motion for directions was heard before me. At the conclusion of the hearing, I ordered that the appeals identified in Schedule “A” all be together heard on May 26-27, 2025.

[7] These reasons explain why.

II. THE MOTION FOR DIRECTIONS

A. Appearances on March 24-25, 2025

[8] Very few individuals personally appeared before me in response to the motion for directions. Some of those who did appear indicated that they had no idea that they had an appeal pending. Others thought that their ticket was dealt with long ago. Others seemed confused as to what was occurring. Given what I was told, those matters in which Appellants personally appeared were adjourned to May 26, 2025, to be spoken to.

[9] Two paralegals licensed by the Law Society of Ontario (“LSO”) also appeared: Mr. Adelin B. Mocanu and Ms. S. Yohannathan in response to the motion. Mr. Mocanu advised the Court that virtually all of the defendants who pleaded guilty to the HTA offences: (i) were his clients (or paralegals he worked with) and, (ii) that he instructed a non-licensed paralegal, his former legal administrator, Kiril Kovuntunko, to commence the appeals on which his name appears. Mr. Mocanu also advised that he is a principal of Ticket Justice whose name appears on notices of appeal following guilty pleas entered either by Mr. Mocanu himself, his paralegal associate Ms. Christina F. Guadangoli or his prior paralegal associate, Mr. Victor Lacaria.

[10] Ms. Yohannathan appeared on the morning of March 24, 2025, on one matter. She asked that I dismiss the appeal as abandoned. I did so. The appeal was restored when the Appellant appeared personally at the end of the day. He advised that he was unaware of the appeal, much less that a paralegal appeared for him in response to the motion. I restored his appeal and adjourned it to be spoken to May 26, 2025.

B. Review of the Part I Appeal Files

[11] The appeal files were reviewed by me during the motion for directions. The purpose was two-fold. The first was to identify representation both at trial and on appeal, an issue I will return to. The second, was to get a sense of the individual files themselves and how long they have been outstanding. That review disclosed the following:

• Most of the Appeals were initiated by Kiril Kovuntunko – an individual who is not a licensed paralegal by the Law Society of Ontario under s. 27 of the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8.
• All the appeals were from guilty pleas to the offence charged or a substituted/lesser offence often resulting in reduced demerit points or fine.
• Most of the guilty pleas were entered by LSO paralegals Adelin Mocanu, his paralegal associate Christina F. Guadangoli or his prior associate and paralegal Victor Lacaria, acting as “agents” for the defendants.
• All the Notices of Appeal filed by Mr. Kovuntunko allege that the defendant was not guilty in the face of a guilty plea being entered by the aforesaid paralegals.
• The notices of appeal filed by Mr. Kovuntunko are pre-printed forms, filled in as necessary.
• The grounds of appeal alleged in the notices of appeal signed by Mr. Kovuntunko are in identical handwriting. They state:
• The notices of appeal filed by Mr. Mocanu’s firm “Ticket Justice” are vague. They allege no grounds of appeal on the heels of a guilty plea other than stating “as the transcripts may disclose.” Worse, the City submits, are other notices of appeal that allege that the defendant wanted a trial in the face of the same paralegal entering the guilty plea raising serious ethical and conflict of interest concerns. Others alleged an unawareness of consequences stating that “I did not realize the effect this would have on my insurance”. This ground alleges that the plea was uninformed. The record below reveals that it was entered by Ms. Guadangoli, an associate of Mr. Mocanu.
• None of the appeals exhibited any indication of an effort to move them forward.
• While ordered, not one transcript was filed with the Court.
• Some offences were committed 5 years ago.

C. The Notices of Appeal

[12] Two notices of appeal only need to be summarized to explain why I ordered that all the appeals proceed to hearing. The first involve those filed by Mr. Kovuntunko. The second are those filed by Ticket Justice, a firm operated by Mr. Mocanu: https://ticketjustice.ca/.

(i) An Example of an Appeal filed by Mr. Kovuntunko

[13] On July 30, 2023, Pannu Pawanpreet was charged with disobey stop sign under the HTA. On November 5, 2023, court records indicate that Mr. Mocanu appeared as “(AGT)”. He entered a guilty plea to the substituted offence of “improper stop” as agent. On November 15, 2024, Mr. Pannu personally paid the fine of $80.00. A notice of appeal was filed the same day. It states:

[14] The sole ground of appeal (identical in all appeals upon which his name appears) stated is:

[15] The transcript for this appeal was ordered three days earlier on November 12, 2024, with an anticipated completion date of December 9, 2024. As of the date of the motion for directions, the transcript had not been filed with the Court. Mr. Pawanpreet did not appear on the motion for directions.

[16] As I read the ground of appeal, it amounts to an assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel engaging obligations on the person advancing it. At the very least, the notice of appeal specifically alleges that the guilty plea was entered without instructions.

[17] When allegations of ineffective assistance are advanced there is a procedure to be followed that has been established for decades in this province derived from our Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. Elliott (1975), 28 C.C.C. (2d) 546 (Ont. C.A). After the release of Elliott, the Court developed protocols for dealing with such allegations. [6] The guidance provided in Elliott was adapted in the context POA Appeals by Libman J., in this Court over 15 years ago: City of Toronto v. Hill, 2007 ONCJ 253. That procedure has not been followed as far as I can tell. [7] This gives rise to the spectre that Appeals are being filed not because there is merit to them but for the sole purpose of creating delay.

(ii) An Example of an Appeal Filed by Ticket Justice Appeal

[18] The notices of appeal filed by Ticket Justice differ from those signed by Mr. Kovuntunko. For example, on July 30, 2020, Mr. Becerra was charged with speeding (85 in a 50). He requested a trial. On January 31, 2023, Mr. Mocanu appeared and a plea of guilty was entered. A $45.00 fine was imposed plus the applicable surcharge. The certificate of the appearance indicates:

[19] Mr. Becerra paid the fine on February 21, 2023. Curiously, the transcripts were ordered on February 1, 2023 (20 days earlier and 2 days after the plea) by Ticket Justice. The anticipated completion date for the transcripts was March 1, 2023 – over 2 years ago. No transcript has been served, let alone filed.

[20] Ticket Justice filed the Notice of Appeal on February 21, 2023. The Notice of Appeal states:

[21] This appeal – for a total fine of $60.00 – remains outstanding. No grounds of appeal are specified. This appeal is now over two years from the date of the guilty plea. It is almost 5 years removed from the offence date.

D. Representations Made by Mr. Mocanu

[22] Both at the beginning and conclusion of the hearing, Mr. Mocanu reiterated that he acted for all the Appellants on which Mr. Kovuntunko filed notices of appeal. He also advised that he was the one who instructed him to file the appeals – irrespective of whether he or the paralegals he worked with entered the guilty pleas.

[23] When asked what his relationship with Mr. Kovuntunko was during the hearing, he advised that Mr. Kovuntunko was his office’s former “legal administrator”. He advised that they no longer worked together and was unaware as to whether Mr. Kovuntunko knew of the City’s motion for directions. He also acknowledged that his paralegal services are delivered through Ticket Justice.

[24] While the City initially asked me to conduct a far-ranging inquiry into the above, I declined to do so. It is my view that any potential misconduct as suggested by the City is a matter for the LSO. They have both the legal and regulatory mandate to investigate the matter should they choose to do so. In addition, my jurisdiction is proscribed by the powers that I have as a Judge sitting in Provincial Offences Act Appeal court. This jurisdiction is even narrower when I am being asked to provide procedural directions regarding the “conduct of an appeal”. Before turning to my analysis, a summary of the appeal process for Part I POA appeals provides necessary context.

III. PROVINCIAL OFFENCE ACT APPEALS IN RESPECT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT OFFENCES

A. HTA Offences Commenced by Certificate

[25] The City of Toronto prosecutes offences under the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990 (“HTA”) under Part I of the Provincial Offences Act (POA) when a peace officer issues a “certificate.” [8] In particular, when a peace officer has grounds to believe that an offence under the HTA has been committed, proceedings can be commenced by way of what is commonly referred to as a “ticket”. In these circumstances, a person has several options, most of which can be done online. They can pay their fine. They can ask for an early resolution meeting. They can retain a representative to deal with the ticket – most often a paralegal licensed and regulated by the Law Society of Ontario (“LSO”). A trial date can be requested. The motion before me is concerned with the latter situation: the defendant retained a paralegal representative, and a trial date was requested. The foregoing was canvassed by Rondinelli J. in Toronto (City) v. Yusuf, 2022 ONCJ 412.

[26] When a trial date is requested, a notice of trial date is sent to the defendant or their representative. At the time of trial, many cases resolve by way of a plea to the offence charged or to a substituted/lesser offence often involving lesser/no demerit points or a reduced fine. Other charges may be withdrawn in consideration of the guilty plea.

[27] In virtually all the appeals before me, a guilty plea was entered either by Mr. Mocanu, Mr. V. Lacaria, or Ms. Guadangoli, acting it would appear as an agent for the defendant, an issue to which I will return. The Provincial Offences Act also provides for a statutory right of appeal. For Part I offences, commenced by certificate, appeals are governed by s. 135 of the POA. It provides:

Appeals, proceedings commenced by certificate
135 (1) A defendant or the prosecutor or the Attorney General by way of intervention is entitled to appeal an acquittal, conviction or sentence in a proceeding commenced by certificate under Part I or II and the appeal shall be to the Ontario Court of Justice presided over by a provincial judge. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 135 (1); 2000, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 13 (6).

Application for appeal
(2) A notice of appeal shall be in the prescribed form and shall state the reasons why the appeal is taken and shall be filed with the clerk of the court within 30 days after the making of the decision appealed from, in accordance with the rules of court, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 135 (2); 2009, c. 33, Sched. 4, s. 1 (57).

[28] Under Part V, General Provisions, the POA identifies who may appear in court for a defendant. Section 82 provides:

Representation
82 A defendant may act by representative. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 131 (14).

[29] The POA defines representative as follows:

“representative” means, in respect of a proceeding to which this Act applies, a person authorized under the Law Society Act to represent a person in that proceeding; (“représentant”)

[30] This definition is an important one. It provides the gateway to regulatory oversight by the LSO and the corollary obligations accruing to the representative “[a]uthorized under the Law Society Act to represent that person”.

[31] In any event, the statutory right of appeal under the POA does not distinguish between convictions arising from a guilty plea or an appeal arising from a contested trial. This is not uncommon. Rights of appeal are often broadly framed as the legislature cannot know for certainty the grounds for an appeal that arise and be advanced. For example, appeals arising from a conviction from a guilty plea can be advanced on the basis that the conviction and sentence imposed was imposed in default [9], was uninformed [10] or entered by a representative without the defendant’s instructions, to name a few.

[32] The availability of Appellate review ensures that even for minor regulatory violations commenced by way of certificate, Ontarians are treated fairly in what has sometimes been referred to as the “people’s court”. This is reflected in the simplified appeal process.

[33] Part I Appeals under the POA are commenced by taking the following steps:

1. A Notice of Appeal in the prescribed form must be filed within 30 days of the date on which the conviction was entered.
2. The fine imposed must be paid, unless relief from payment of the fine is sought by way of an appellant signing a recognizance before a Judge of this Court.
3. The transcripts from the proceedings must be ordered.
4. The City of Toronto is served with the Notice of Appeal as the “Respondent”.
5. The City acknowledges receipt of service by way of stamping the notice of appeal.
6. The Appeal is then filed with this Court, which also stamps the appeal documents providing for proof that the Appeal has been filed. [11]

B. The Conviction Can be “Stayed” When Notice of the Appeal is Provided to the MTO

[34] Once the paperwork is completed and the fine paid, I understand that it can all be emailed to the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”). Once the appeal documents are received by the MTO, the conviction is removed from the person’s driving abstract pending adjudication of the Appeal. Removal of the conviction by the MTO occurs whether it was a guilty plea or a contested trial.

[35] In all the cases before me, the appeals arise from guilty pleas.

[36] I also understand that the practical effect of this process is that a driver abstract may be inaccurate until the appeal is adjudicated. There is little incentive to move the appeal forward. Demerit points do not accrue. Remedial programs or suspensions may not be triggered. Insurers who assess risk do not find out about the guilty plea. Driving abstracts upon which every level of Court in this Province relies may be inaccurate when considering that abstract when sentencing person for driving related offences.

[37] Lastly, I pause to note that here is no evidence before me that in any of the appeals that are currently before me that the MTO was advised that the appeals had been filed. I raise this simply because the delay in moving appeals forward has practical consequences. If the MTO removes the conviction, there is no incentive to move the appeal forward. Indeed, it may be prudent that when a Part I Appeal is filed, the Appellant is given a hearing date at the same time pursuant to ss. 135(3) of the POA.

[38] I might also add that where guilty pleas are entered it may be prudent that the presiding Justice confirm that the representative has discussed the implications of a guilty plea regarding the potential waiver of appeal rights. [12] Such a process would ensure: (a) that pleas are informed, and (b) plea negotiations proceed fairly. This would also tend to avoid, or at least mitigate, the concern at the root of the motion before me.

IV. CONCLUSION

[39] My jurisdiction is limited to providing procedural orders regarding the outstanding appeals that are the subject of the City’s motion for directions. In all the circumstances and having regard to the representations made by Mr. Mocanu that he is prepared to perfect the appeals by filing the transcripts and any necessary affidavit material, I ordered that all the Appeals will be heard on May 26-27, 2025, in Court 101.

[40] In the result, I Ordered that:

1. Mr. Mocanu is to perfect all the Appeals filed either by Ticket Justice or Mr. Kovuntunko on or before April 9, 2025, by serving the assigned City Prosecutors and filing the material thereafter with the Court the same day.
2. No appeal may be abandoned unless the defendant appears before the Court, either in person or via remote appearance.
3. He shall also file the Court Reporter’s notification of when the transcripts were completed and ready for pickup.

[41] Lastly, it is my intention to appoint an amicus given the issues that arise in these appeals. The City and Mr. Mocanu are directed to obtain a date for an appearance before me for ½ hour no later than Friday, April 11, 2025. The appearance can proceed remotely.

Released: April 7, 2025
Revised Reasons Released: April 9, 2025 [13]

Justice Louis P. Strezos

SCHEDULE “A”

List of Respondents – Prosecutor’s Motion for Direction

Monday March 24, 2025 - 10am Listing

LAST Name	First Name
AKHTAR	SHAKIB
BERNARDI	DEANNA
CARINCI	ALDO
CIALONE	NICHOLAS
ELKIND	MATTHEW
MEBELLI	EGOLENT
GHADIRI	FAHIM
HA	HOANG
HASSAN	HADI
HOSSEIN	ALEEFAH
JALALZAEI	MOTTEZA
JASHARI	XHAFER
JAWANSHIR	NAQUIBULLAH
KERMALI	AZIM
KLOPOT	ROBERT
MA	JASON
NAQVI	RAGHDA
OHENE-ADU	REXFORD
PANAICH	JAGDEEP
PETERS	CHANTAL
RAMJATTAN	VANESSA
SALIM	LAYTH
SANDHU	AZAD
SANTOS	ANA-KRISTINA
SGRO	CHRISTOPHER
SIVALOGANATHAN	THARSANA
SOLTANZADEH	AMIR
SPEIS	CONSTANTINE
VELGADO	CARLA
VIRGILIO	ASCENZO
CINARI	BRIKEN
DEGROOT	DIMITRI
ANNALLE	ANTONIO
ABBASI	SANAZ
ALTMAMY	SABAH
AMARSINGH	SHEMAR
BHARUCHA	MUAZ
DEMIRCI	BORA
DA-SILVA	KRYSTLE
DEMEDEIROS	ANDREW
GHAFOORI	AHMAD
KAZBEKOV	VLADIMER
KORZAREVA	RADINA
MA	CHRISTOPHER
MANSOUR	MERAY
MONTENEGRO	SANTIAGO
MORAD	ALITREZA
MORAD	DESMOND
NADARAJAH	SRIKANTHAN
PAGLIOCCA	JOHN
PATGUNALINGAM	PAHIRATHAN
RAHSHANI	MASOUD
ROSA	SERGIO
KARIMI	SEYEDHOUMAN
SHABANI	ESTER
ANMOLSINGH	ANMOLSINGH
WILKINSON	GERALD
YOUNIS	AHSAN

March 24, 2025 - 2:00pm Listing

LAST Name	First Name
AL-QAYSI	MUAYAD
ARANEGA	ANTHONY
ATWAL	TANPREETPAL
AUJLA	JAGVIR
AYOOB-KHAN	AHAMED
BARKHO	MICHEL
BATTISTA	ADAMO
BOTEV	VILLIAN
CAIN	MICHELLE
DACOSTA	BRIAN
DIXON	DYNARE
GHANIM	FARAH
GUPTA	RAGHAV
JARQYUINCORONA	ANTONIO
JULIAN	KALISGA
KEARNEY	MARK
KIMEL	CHLOE
LARIONOV	IGOR
MANGAT	ARSHWINDER
MASSON	ASHLEY
MAHMOOD	RAJA
MENGUA	LANCE
MIAH	MOHAMMED
MOLINARO	CARMINE
PERSAUD	JASON
RASHID	KAZI
SARMIENTO	GERMAN
SERRAO	PASQUALE
SHARMA	LUKESH
SIDORA	MATTHEW
SINGH	ROBIN
SLUPKOWSKI	TADEUSZ
SUBRAMANIAM	TADEUSZ
TAWAB	MOHAMMAD
TUTCU	MERT
UTHAYASOORIYAN	JEEVAKAN
WALKER	CONNOR
WALSZAK	PASKAL
BROCCA	MICHAEL
BECERRA	MIGUEL
RAFIQ	MUHAMMAD
ABAWI	OBAIDULLAH
ARSHAD	SYED
AUJLA	JAGVIR
BRAR	SATWANT
BUTTAR	JAMAL
CURBI	ALEM
DANIEL	JACKSON
DHILLON	INDERPREET
DIMACOPOULOS	ARGIRIOS
KHAN	SAHMSHER
NAZIR	ADRIAN
SHEKHTER	DAVID
KOSTADINOV	KOSTADIN
MAJARI	POUYA
NOVAK	IVANA
SOLIS-SYMMES	SERENA
TAYLOR	GREGORY

March 25, 2025 – 10:00am Listing

LAST Name	First Name
ABOVATH	AMAAR
AGYARKO	ERIC
ALVA	JULIO
ALVES	PAUL
AZIZI	ZAHRA
BRADY	CALEB
BRAVERMAN	MELANIE
CHOWDHURY	AHIA
COELHO	ANDRE
DRAJEWICZ	MICHAEL
FASHOLA	SHERIFDEEN
GJONAJ	PRENG
GALLAPENI	REXHEP
GIAMMARIOLI	COLE
GJOSHI	EDUART
HAQUE	MOHAMED
JAVAID	ANAS
JAAFAR	SAMEH
MICAHEL	KUSHA
KASSERI	DIONYSIA
KODRA	ERLIS
LOURENCO	CATRINA
MARTINEZ CAMARENA	LORENA
MAGDIC	MICHAEL
MULTANI	AJITPAL
NAEM	MARIEM
NERO	DAVID
PANUCCI	RAMO
PAJTESA	ARBEN
PASQUALINO	FRANCESCO
PETTINELLI	GIUSEPPE
PIECHOTA	BEATA
QUARISHI	AREF
SIAD-BACELAR	LEO
SHARIFOV	DOSTON
SONDHI	JUSTIN
SINGH	DILRAJ
TEMESGEN	MIKIYAES
VATANDEEP	VATANDEEP
VALENTINO	VALAKIS
YOUSIF	REEMON
BISCARDI	JOSHUA
CHARLTON	JOHN
DEMEDEIROS	ANDREW
GJOKAJ	VALENTE
GHARKEL	JASMEET
KAMALSINGH	KAMALSINGH
SAINI	LAKSHAY
PUSHPARAJAN	ARJUN
RECINOS	BRENDA
SHARIFOV	SAVLATBEK

March 25, 2025 – 2:00pm Listing

LAST Name	First Name
ADJETEY	ALBERT
ANDRADE	JUSTIN
BYRNE	JONATHAN J.
CETINKAYA	ILKCAN
CERESNE	FRANCES
CHEN	JOHNSON
DERCOLE	MICHAEL A.
DONOVAN	ADAM S.
DRESHAJ	KOLI
ESTERON	JAYCHEL A.
GIORGI	ANGELO
GINGELL	BRANDON R.
IANNELLO	NAZZARENO
IANNELLO	NAZZARENO
IAZOVTSKY	MARTIN A.
JOHAL	HARMINDER K.
KILROY	COLIN Q.
KAVEHZADEH	PEDRAM
LEE	OLIVIA
LUTCHMAN	JORDAN P.
MONTEIROKUSS	LEANDRO
PANNU	PAWANPREET
QARRI	LANDI
SINGH	YADWINDER
TARI	JAMES
THARMASOTHY	HARIHARAN R.
ABDULGHANI	MOHAMMAD
AZIZI	SAWHIL
ALESSANDRO	NICOLINO
ACCARDI	GIULIANO
ANASTASIOU	AA.
BAWA	JAISAL
BLAINEY	BRYAN
BAKSH	JAVAD
IVANOV	UADYM
CELAJ	KRISTJAN
CELAJ	KRISTJAN
CELAJ	KRISTJAN
CHAMPIRI	AL DEHGANI
CLARKE	JOEVAL
CARANCI	ANTONIO
DOUGLAS	BARRINGTON
FIALHO	FABIO
FILICE	NICHOLAS
FOCARINO	PETER
GUERRA	STEVEN
GODFREY	DONALD
NGUYEN	TRAN HOANG
HASHIMI	SAID
KUMARALAGAN	PAVITHIRA
KAKAR	MAYANK
KAPASOURIS	ALEXANDER
LEE	IN-SOOK
MUSTAFA	NAFEE-U
MOSKO	JEFFREY
MEHMETI	ARTHUR
MISTRY	AUVNI
MAZZUCCO	CAMILLO
NIKAEEN	RAMIN
NATT	TEJINDER
NAQVI	ZAIN
PROSKINAS	JEVGENIJUS
SINNIAH	VALARMATHY
SACCO	LICIA
SANTONATO	HOLLY
TARNAWA	MARIUSZ
TAM	JAIME
STEWARD	HORACE

Footnotes

[1] The named Respondents to the Motion are set out in Schedule “A”.
[2] All the appeals fall under Part I of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O, 1990 (“POA”).
[3] An Order from this Court extending the time for filing an appeal is necessary if it is filed outside of 30 days. This requires an explanation for the delay and articulation of some merit before a Judge of this Court. That did not occur in any of the appeals. They were all filed prior to 30 days expiring.
[4] The letter stated: “You have been identified either as the legal representative who entered a guilty plea on their behalf, which is now the subject of an appeal, or as the legal representative who filed the appeals on the appellants’ behalf.”
[5] It provides:
DIRECTIONS
12. A party to an appeal may make a motion to the court at any time for directions with respect to the conduct of the appeal. O. Reg. 722/94, r. 12.
[6] See, Rule 1: Practice Direction Concerning Criminal Appeals at the Court of Appeal for Ontario
[7] This Court publishes a readily available guide for Appeals in Provincial Offences Guide (Winter 2015). It states, in part:
Conduct of a lawyer or paralegal: If you intend to raise any issue about how your legal representative handled your case at trial, you must notify that person about these issues so that he or she may respond. You should also let both the appeal court office and the prosecutor know about this well in advance of the hearing date (preferably in your Notice of Appeal).
I note that while the notices of appeal essentially allege ineffective assistance, it would not be apparent to POA staff or prosecuting counsel that the paralegal filing the appeal was often the same representative who acted on the guilty plea. This information could only be gleaned by the comparative process I conducted during the motion for directions: see, infra, para. 17 for an example of a certificate of appearance.
[8] COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS BY CERTIFICATE OF OFFENCE
Certificate of offence and offence notice
3 (1) In addition to the procedure set out in Part III for commencing a proceeding by laying an information, a proceeding in respect of an offence may be commenced by filing a certificate of offence alleging the offence in the office of the court. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 3 (1).
[9] Toronto (City) v. Zhen, 2022 ONCJ 410.
[10] Toronto (City) v. Clarino, 2022 ONCJ 524.
[11] City of Toronto - Dispute Your Provincial Offence
[12] R. v. Lopez-Restrepo, 2018 ONCA 887, per Trotter J.A., at paras. 18-28.
[13] The text of original decision released on April 7, 2025, is corrected with the following changes:

1. Style of Cause: BOROUGHT is deleted and replaced with BROUGHT.
2. Para. 5: “and” appeal is deleted, replaced with “an” appeal.
3. Para. 9: “that whose name”, the word “that” is deleted.
4. Jurat: April 7 is deleted and replaced with April 9.